From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 00:05:57 MDT
Going back closer to the beginning of this thread:
At 09:12 PM 5/27/02 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>I had written, as an example of why logic, not grounded in reality
>must be used with care
>>> Theorem: God Exists.
>>> Proof: If this sentence is true, then God exists. Therefore,
>>> God exists because that sentence is indeed true.
If a statement is declared a theorem (as I understand it), it must be true,
by fiat definition, *for those limited logical purposes*. The three
original words and the colon assert that the final two words are true. So
what? One might also freely assert that:
Theorem: God does not Exist.
Theorem: dogs are cats.
Lee's point, or so I assumed, was the simple and useful reminder that logic
alone has no power over ontology. Hence, `logic, not grounded in reality[,]
must be used with care'.
Damien Broderick
[not a logician]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:29 MST